Quote from: Manzikert on September 18, 2025, 06:04:12 PM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PM

Quote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMIn terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.

"Mobs" are usually TuGs of 10 or more.  Archers can be in 6's.  That is why downgrading twice is creating an unintended effect.  Any lists with "mobs" of archers generally already allow them to be Poor.  As Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.

I didn't realize 'mob' was already in the jargon. I was just using it to mean 'TuG that provides bodies but doesn't contribute to the fight'.

If someone is making effective use of massed tribal, Unprotect/combat shy, experienced bow I'd love to see how they did it! On paper they look terrible and my attempts at it have only confirmed that impression.

But I see that as a separate issue from 'is the ability to double downgrade a problem". I don't think that it is generally speaking. Though hypothetically I could see it being an issue in lists intended to be small elite armies. If for example Imperial Rome had access to 36+ bases of crap archers it would give the list the ability to trade a single legionary TuG for 5-6 TuGs of double downgrade archers and take an army from 5-6 break point to 8 which might be an issue. But even then it seems like it would be offset by having fewer fighting TuGs in an already small army and creating a massive 'points pituita' that has to be protected.

+1 We are seeing far too many changes proposed only because some people dislike the way other people play. If you dislike creativity and clever play so much may I suggest Hail Caesar or Tactica?

Quote+1 We are seeing far too many changes proposed only because some people dislike the way other people play. If you dislike creativity and clever play so much may I suggest Hail Caesar or Tactica?

It's being done do not worry about it

I do not call it creativity and clever play but cheesy use of the rules . So sorry to disagree .

My opinion is that a good player should not have to downgrade units if the lists does not allow it specifically . But the rules allow it so be it, but cheesy to me .

Quote from: badhabum on October 07, 2025, 08:27:24 PMMy opinion is that a good player should not have to downgrade units if the lists does not allow it specifically . But the rules allow it so be it, but cheesy to me .

To each his own, I do not find it cheesy when I have to take a mandatory archer TUG in an Komnenan ally I take for the cavalry ... I will always downgrade it completely, and no shame about it.

Now this could be considered the peculiar case of an ally, but it stands nevertheless.

Antoine

Quote from: badhabum on October 07, 2025, 08:27:24 PM

Quote+1 We are seeing far too many changes proposed only because some people dislike the way other people play. If you dislike creativity and clever play so much may I suggest Hail Caesar or Tactica?

It's being done do not worry about it

I do not call it creativity and clever play but cheesy use of the rules . So sorry to disagree .

My opinion is that a good player should not have to downgrade units if the lists does not allow it specifically . But the rules allow it so be it, but cheesy to me .

This is a really poor attitude to take on the topic.

NGL, this proposed change feels like it's being made for the wrong reasons.

The arguments being made in its favor aren't about game balance or historical accuracy, but because some players don't like how other people play.

Franky, I find this a very poor reason to take choices away from players.

Quote from: Doomsmile on October 11, 2025, 06:44:25 AMNGL, this proposed change feels like it's being made for the wrong reasons.

The arguments being made in its favor aren't about game balance or historical accuracy, but because some players don't like how other people play.

Franky, I find this a very poor reason to take choices away from players.

Plus 1

If a troop type is regarded as worthless enough that everyone downgrades them to save points, then that troop type needs to be cheaper.

Given that bows are supposedly more effective with the amendments, I suggest continuing to allow the double downgrades to see if people no longer choose to take them. If people continue to double downgrade, then you'll know you still need to cut the cost of the undowngraded troops.

Quote from: LawrenceG on October 11, 2025, 10:43:22 AMIf a troop type is regarded as worthless enough that everyone downgrades them to save points, then that troop type needs to be cheaper.

Given that bows are supposedly more effective with the amendments, I suggest continuing to allow the double downgrades to see if people no longer choose to take them. If people continue to double downgrade, then you'll know you still need to cut the cost of the undowngraded troops.

this of course predisposes that the downgraded troops are there for the purposes of fighting/participating in the battle/game. My max downgraded tugs are there to provide an extra break point and are deployed as far away from any reasonable expectation of being involved as possible.

my sugs are max downgraded, esp foot skirmishers with javelins to provide meat shields for expensive troops, some scouting points and at minimal cost, so participation only in the sense of taking one for the team.

the rules allow me to do this currently , so I do so and imho I do it rather well. It is gamey and I'd happy see it become one or the other.

as to not liking how other people play, what the player does in the privacy of his own list design is his choice and I don't judge. Now take an hour deploy your troops then I'm gonna get judgy.... -edit, a generic whinge not aimed at the quoted poster.

To me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics

Quote from: badhabum on October 11, 2025, 04:15:38 PMTo me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics

I do not understand this post. Would you consider explaining the connection between limiting downgrades and historicity ? I am sure I am unusually dense.

I feel the need to contribute.
The essence behind this proposal is that the game system allows a player to lose all his leaders, nobles, aristocracy and elite fighting units whilst all the levies, horde, conscripts and peasants sit back and fight on denying  worthy opponent the laurels of victory, which they deserve.
Now, not all players do this, indeed very few do, but those who do exploit the simplicity of the scoring system to their advantage and to the detriment of the game.
That is why this has been suggested.
Lance.

Quote from: Lanceflint on October 11, 2025, 08:10:46 PMI feel the need to contribute.
The essence behind this proposal is that the game system allows a player to lose all his leaders, nobles, aristocracy and elite fighting units whilst all the levies, horde, conscripts and peasants sit back and fight on denying  worthy opponent the laurels of victory, which they deserve.
Now, not all players do this, indeed very few do, but those who do exploit the simplicity of the scoring system to their advantage and to the detriment of the game.
That is why this has been suggested.
Lance.

This proposal doesn't actually address that issue though. A player can still take downgraded filler TuGs to bulk up numbers, they just cost 150 points rather than 102. So someone could still get 4 extra TuGs for 600 points rather than 6 for 612. With a bit of theory crafting I'm able to put together an 11 TuG army from the Serbian Empire (5303) taking 6 TuGs of knights (2 of them superior) and 5 TuGs of Single-downgrade archers.

But is this a problem, either from a game balance or historical representation perspective? From my theory crafting for a swarm army with the Tamil  I don't think there's much advantage in taking a bunch of chaff to maximize breakpoint when you could be taking actually competent units. There are armies with higher range units like Palmyra (2816) who can potentially trade one Legionary to bulk their breakpoint by 3 (or 2 with this change). But I just don't think being down a fighting TuG is worth the extra breakpoint. The one case I can see it potentially being a balance issue is when it gives a small army of elites the staying power of a larger army of competent troops. But even then I'm skeptical, tiny armies aren't very good generally because they're so easy to envelope. But also, this change doesn't actually prevent that considering the Serbian army described above.

If this is an issue the best solution would probably be to just reduce the maximum for these units to 18-24 in armies where it's a potential issue.

Edit: I also wanted to mention that while I appreciate it's simplicity I agree that the MeG scoring system leaves something to be desired. But discussing that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

Well, it does go a long way to reduce the effects of this problem without wiping out those lovely, but rubbish units, from the game?
You are quite right to say that certain armies will not use this `tactic`, either because of the nature of the army, or that of the player.
We are trying to do simple and more streamlined where possible, without any detriment to the game system.
Lance.

Perhaps the thing to do is increase the cost of the double downgraded troops, then. 

Quote from: Lanceflint on October 12, 2025, 09:53:35 AMWell, it does go a long way to reduce the effects of this problem without wiping out those lovely, but rubbish units, from the game?
You are quite right to say that certain armies will not use this `tactic`, either because of the nature of the army, or that of the player.
We are trying to do simple and more streamlined where possible, without any detriment to the game system.
Lance.

I'm not convinced this is a problem. Break point padding doesn't work for swarm armies, it's of dubious use in mid-range armies, and 7 TuG armies of super elites don't work and I don't see increasing their break point from 4 to 6 is going to change that when it also creates a massive points piñata their opponent can exploit.

But to the extent it is a problem this solution is ineffective anyway as the Serbian example shows. More than that I don't think it can succeed, I was able to reproduce the 11 TuG Serbian army above taking no downgrades at all. 6 TuGs of Knights (2 superior) and 5 TuGs of archers which had combat shy but no other downgrades. I only had to compromise command down from 12 to 11.

Quote from: LawrenceG on October 12, 2025, 12:52:08 PMPerhaps the thing to do is increase the cost of the double downgraded troops, then. 

This change effectively already does that.

Again, I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs to be fixed but even if it is this approach just feels like 3 lefts to make a right. Better to solve the problem directly by decreasing the max number of these TuGs available.